4 ms·

The performance and tech detail post linked in the general article may be interesting to folks here: http://devops.rackspace.com/benchmarking-hosted-mongodb-ser

The performance and tech detail post linked in the general article may be interesting to folks here: http://devops.rackspace.com/benchmarking-hosted-mongodb-services.html http://devops.rackspace.com/benchmarking-hosted-mongodb-serv... Disclosure: I'm a Racker on the team helping out with the project.

ericcholis 14y ago
Any insight on what version of MongoDB was used in the tests?
- pquerna 14y ago
  ObjectRocket provides 2.2.
nirvana 14y ago
I love all these "benchmarks" of "NoSQL" databases running on single nodes. Plus you don't name the competitors or any configuration data so... this is really marketing not engineering. Not that any engineer worth a damn would use a database that loses data in the first place.
- bretpiatt 14y ago
  What type of configuration data are you looking for? The tests used the $150/month price point offering on each DBaaS, the configuration options are built into the service. Regarding NoSQL and "single node" vs. "multi node" -- NoSQL isn't just about scale out systems, it is about mapping the proper type of data store to the data model. If you have a complex relational schema you should use a SQL database. If you need a simple to use document or object store the NoSQL solutions are often easier to code against.
- davidkassa 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure that Provider #1 is MongoHQ ("Replica Set: Small") and Provider #2 is MongoLab ("Mini"). MongoHQ doesn't show a "Replica Set: Small" anymore, though, on their pricing page - only Large. Configuration data and multiple nodes would be nice.
- obviouslygreen 14y ago
  Not that any engineer worth a damn would use a database that loses data in the first place. Ironic and invalid generalization. When the tradeoffs are acceptable or preferable (e.g. data persistence is not vital and your application can get better performance out of a database that can "lose data") it makes sense. Whether it's relevant to the article or not, this is simply false and not constructive at all.

ericcholis 14y ago

Any insight on what version of MongoDB was used in the tests?

pquerna 14y ago
ObjectRocket provides 2.2.

nirvana 14y ago

I love all these "benchmarks" of "NoSQL" databases running on single nodes. Plus you don't name the competitors or any configuration data so... this is really marketing not engineering. Not that any engineer worth a damn would use a database that loses data in the first place.

bretpiatt 14y ago
What type of configuration data are you looking for? The tests used the $150/month price point offering on each DBaaS, the configuration options are built into the service. Regarding NoSQL and "single node" vs. "multi node" -- NoSQL isn't just about scale out systems, it is about mapping the proper type of data store to the data model. If you have a complex relational schema you should use a SQL database. If you need a simple to use document or object store the NoSQL solutions are often easier to code against.
davidkassa 14y ago
I'm pretty sure that Provider #1 is MongoHQ ("Replica Set: Small") and Provider #2 is MongoLab ("Mini"). MongoHQ doesn't show a "Replica Set: Small" anymore, though, on their pricing page - only Large. Configuration data and multiple nodes would be nice.
obviouslygreen 14y ago
Not that any engineer worth a damn would use a database that loses data in the first place. Ironic and invalid generalization. When the tradeoffs are acceptable or preferable (e.g. data persistence is not vital and your application can get better performance out of a database that can "lose data") it makes sense. Whether it's relevant to the article or not, this is simply false and not constructive at all.